Trajetórias de ocupação e expansão da fronteira agropecuária no PA Rio Juma Apuí/AM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trajectories of occupation and expansion of the agriculture and ranching frontier in the RioJuma Rural Settlement -Apui/AMThe Amazon represents Brazil's main natural heritage and covers more than half of the national territory.After a decade of positive results in controlling deforestation in the Amazon, the recent changes in the national regulatory and policy frameworks, the weakening of monitoring and command and control processes, and the lack of a clear strategy for the region's social and economic development, put all of these results at risk.Some reasons can be presented and discussed as drivers of deforestation in the Amazon, including the expansion of the agricultural frontier, land tenure issues, infrastructure (highways, hydroelectric dams) and changes in the Brazilian Forest Code, as well as the consecutive budget cuts of the Ministry of Environment (MMA) and of law enforcement agencies.This study sought to evaluate additional and still-unexplored variables in the debates of the causes and drivers of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: the different trajectories of human occupation in specific territories and the informality of the local relationships, using as a case study the Rio Juma Rural Settlement Project (PARJ), located at the municipality of Apui/AM, one of the epicenters of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.The results obtained by this study demonstrate an increasing financial profitability of cattle ranching in the PARJ associated with the increase of land prices and the beef commodity in the national market, which should generate the investments for the expansion of the deforestation frontier and the consolidation of pasturelands in the PARJ and in new deforestation frontiers, such as the municipality of Novo Aripuana/AM.Control mechanisms are discussed, such as integrating and disclosing financial data related to the transactions executed through local bank agencies and comparing these with the municipal public accounts.The informality of the cattle-ranching activity and the absence of land-governance models push towards more deforestation and accumulation of land by new arrivals who are more highly capitalized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".